[Lnc-business] Motion to suspend Arvin Vohra

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

Agreed Joshua.

On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 10:22 AM Arvin Vohra <votevohra at gmail.com> wrote:

> quick corrections - my facts above were off (result of a google search).
> Here's the correct info:
>
> A person commits the crime of sexual assault if he or she is 10 years
> older than a minor who is 15 or 16 years old. A person convicted of this
> crime is guilty of class 1 misdemeanor sexual assault. Sexual assault is
> considered an “extraordinary risk crime,” which allows for a more severe
> sentence. The enhanced sentence for this extraordinary risk crime ranges
> from six to 24 months in jail or a fine of $500 to $5,000 or both.
>
> The Felony: A person commits class 4 felony sexual assault if he or she is
> at least 4 years older than a minor who is 14 years old or younger.2 This
> extraordinary risk crime has a sentence range of two to eight years
> inprison or a $2,000 to $500,000 fine or both.
>
> On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 12:06 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <
> caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
>
>> Since you start off mischaracterizing what I said, I decline.
>>
>> Further none of that is relevant to the point at hand.  I think Alicia
>> pretty much took care of that cost benefit (to you) fallacy.
>>
>> And I decline to use the state as a benchmark for anything.
>>
>> -Caryn Ann
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 9:56 AM Arvin Vohra <votevohra at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Ms. Harlos,
>>>
>>> There is a range of views on statutory rape. Your view, which considers
>>> it essentially identical to first degree rape, is not one I agree with, or
>>> one that the law agrees with, or one that historical precedent agrees with.
>>> My view, that it is a matter for family and not the state, is also not one
>>> that the law agrees with. So let's settle this like good anarchists and use
>>> the state as a benchmark.
>>>
>>> I'll use your state as a benchmark (assuming you still live in
>>> Colorado), but apply the view that taxation is theft.
>>>
>>> To consider the currrent item under discussion, I'll use your state as a
>>> benchmark. 12 years of public school involves taking $120,000 from others,
>>> often against their direct wishes, over their objections, without their
>>> consent. Morally,  that's the equivalent of theft of that amount, which in
>>> Colorado carries jail of up to 12 years and a $750,000 fine.
>>>
>>> In colorado, an adult who has sex with a 15 year old faces no penalty.
>>>
>>> An adult who has sex with a 14 year old to whom her or she is marrried
>>> faces no penalty.
>>>
>>> An adult who has non-marital sex with a 14 year old faces 1-12 years in
>>> prison, and a $2000 to $500,000 fine.
>>>
>>> An adult who uses force, whether married or otherwise, faces first
>>> degree (not statutory) rape charges.
>>>
>>> -Arvin
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 7:58 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <
>>> caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> So...... to hell with the 14 year old.  It’s all about me and that’s
>>>> how I should present it to the world.
>>>>
>>>> Is it better she just voluntarily committ suicide?  That’s real cheap.
>>>>
>>>> I am as opposed to theft as you are.  It doesn’t mean that I view
>>>> everything as a math equation and think it just fine to say it’s better
>>>> something horrible happens to someone else.
>>>>
>>>> How about humans are not balance sheets?  That both SUCK and don’t need
>>>> to be quantified.
>>>>
>>>> How many rapes equal one theft?  How about theft of a penny? What
>>>> happened to proportionality?  Or being opposed to the transfer of misery.
>>>> WTAF.
>>>>
>>>> See how ruthless that is?
>>>>
>>>> THAT IS NOT OUR MESSAGE.  That might be a ruthless objectivism but the
>>>> LP split from that in its first years.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 5:43 PM Arvin Vohra <votevohra at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi all -
>>>>>
>>>>> Just to make sure people know my view on the issue that Caryn Ann
>>>>> brought up: I do consider forcing others to pay for your kids to be a
>>>>> nonconsensual act, completely morally unjustifiable.
>>>>>
>>>>> To put it in degree perspective:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. It is done to a stranger.
>>>>> 2. There is no hint of consent.
>>>>> 3. There is often direct, vocal opposition.
>>>>> 4. The act is backed up with very real threats of force, including the
>>>>> threat of being locked in a rape cage by the state if you don't comply.
>>>>> Said rape cages are known for first degree, not statutory, rape.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Arvin
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 6:52 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <
>>>>> caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hmm I manage to condemn the state every day without making people
>>>>>> into mere digits on an tax spending worksheet.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Cold Equations is a fantastic short story.  But terrible politics,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 4:50 PM Caryn Ann Harlos <
>>>>>> caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oh the courage to say a 14 year old girl is better to be impregnated
>>>>>>> by potential perv with a good job than a fellow young innocent fumbling his
>>>>>>> way through a foolish act.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Much brave.  Many whistle.  Wow.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 4:45 PM David Demarest <
>>>>>>> david.demerest at lp.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well, let's see. Arvin has committed no crime, no violation of the
>>>>>>>> SoP or bylaws and has not deserted to the enemy. His is being tried in
>>>>>>>> public by some who think he has violated their personal moral code but
>>>>>>>> primarily by those who are self-proclaimed political-correctness hypocrites
>>>>>>>> who think it perfectly okay to misrepresent their personal dictates of
>>>>>>>> conscience to achieve political goals, namely to avoid losing votes, a bad
>>>>>>>> case of top-down get-elected-itis.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This reminds me of McCarthyism but in reverse, persecution for
>>>>>>>> being too Libertarian and risking scaring away voters, most of who could
>>>>>>>> care less about Arvin. If you think carefully about it, Arvin is a whistle
>>>>>>>> blower on those who are evading their responsibility to properly handle
>>>>>>>> government-imposed moral dilemmas. Yes, indeedy, Arvin has made us very
>>>>>>>> uncomfortable, and rightly so, for which we are persecuting him. Does the
>>>>>>>> LNC want to achieve a reputation of punishing outspoken whistle blowers?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Arvin was elected by convention delegates, not by the LNC. This
>>>>>>>> motion usurps the power of the delegates, all in the name of bowing to LNC
>>>>>>>> internal fearmongering, at best. We need to demonstrate our courage and do
>>>>>>>> things the right way, not the lynch-mob way.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Jan 16, 2018 5:01 PM, Daniel Hayes <daniel.hayes at lp.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And say we suspend/remove him.  He will still be the Libertarian
>>>>>>>> Senate Candidate for Maryland.  To my understanding that CANT be rescinded.
>>>>>>>> That ship has sailed as the paperwork is filed with the Maryland Secretary
>>>>>>>> of State.
>>>>>>>>    Arvin’s not going to magically shut up if he gets suspended from
>>>>>>>> the LNC.  He likely will see a greater need to “teach everyone what
>>>>>>>> Libertarianism really is”.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Daniel Hayes
>>>>>>>> LNC At Large Member
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Jan 16, 2018, at 4:53 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <
>>>>>>>> caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What solutions?  A resolution that satisfied no one and only let it
>>>>>>>> happen again?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 3:42 PM David Demarest <
>>>>>>>> david.demerest at lp.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Tough decision and it will only get tougher if it goes to a vote
>>>>>>>> that will result in perhaps irreparable repercussions to all on both sides
>>>>>>>> of the issue. Not much happened last year when it died on the vine with no
>>>>>>>> co-sponsors and gave everyone a chance to step back from the nuclear option
>>>>>>>> abyss and saner minds space to work on solutions.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Jan 16, 2018 4:28 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I’m saying it’s interesting when this is brought up as a radical
>>>>>>>> issue (not in this Body) yet the fact that the LNC member who might be one
>>>>>>>> of the most visible radicals who in this case is the primary antagonist is
>>>>>>>> missing from the narrative.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Because it’s not as simple as that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We don’t need enemies.  We do it to ourselves.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -Caryn Ann
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 3:17 PM Joshua Katz <
>>>>>>>> planning4liberty at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It sounds like you're saying one example of a Radical is being
>>>>>>>> pointed to, to tar the whole.  That sounds like what many of us are saying
>>>>>>>> can happen to the Party.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But, that aside, I wasn't advocating for yes or no.  I was
>>>>>>>> advocating for a decision.  Issues become more divisive if they continually
>>>>>>>> come back up than if they are resolved, one way or the other.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Joshua A. Katz
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 3:56 PM, Daniel Hayes <daniel.hayes at lp.org>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But that is how it starts.  Bullshit hit piece articles by those
>>>>>>>> angling for political advantage.   It starts with Arvin, but it doesn’t
>>>>>>>> stop there. THAT is why I will vote no.  The purge starts with Arvin but it
>>>>>>>> won’t stop there.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In my conversation with Dr Howard Wetsman yesterday we were taking
>>>>>>>> about revolutionary movements of the past having digressed from our
>>>>>>>> original conversation and he said this:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> “ Authoritarian revolutionary parties have a history of creating
>>>>>>>> offenses with which to convict individuals in the party and remove them
>>>>>>>> from a position of influence.”
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But we aren’t authoritarians..we don’t spend hours fighting over
>>>>>>>> rules and arguing over the way we tell people how to be a Libertarian every
>>>>>>>> two years.. errr..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This purge it starts with Arvin, then they will go after Nick,
>>>>>>>> including in his campaign for mayor(can’t have a guy that might succeed),
>>>>>>>> then they will come for me because I won’t stand for people LYING about
>>>>>>>> what Arvin actually said and I don’t want to feed the guillotine because
>>>>>>>> it’s thirst is never sated once it gets a taste.  Then it will be for
>>>>>>>> radicals other than Arvin, and others that don’t agree with the new
>>>>>>>> saviors/overlords of the Party.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Look at some of the opportunistic behavior.  Trent Somes and the
>>>>>>>> Libertarian Youth Caucus advocate for removal of what they see as laws that
>>>>>>>> discriminate against teens based on age.  Arvin calls for that removal and
>>>>>>>> they condemned him and mischaracterize what he said. Trent’s own Uncle has
>>>>>>>> pointed out this hypocrisy.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Then there are NUMEROUS would be candidates and caucuses, some of
>>>>>>>> who agree with Arvin’s basic positions and are also mischaracterizing what
>>>>>>>> he actually said and trying to use it for political advantage.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Who will be the Libertarian Party’s Mao, Lenin, Castro or
>>>>>>>> Danton(and those that took his head)? Who will start the purge?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Daniel Hayes
>>>>>>>> LNC At Large Member
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Jan 16, 2018, at 3:25 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <
>>>>>>>> caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Arvin started it.  Let me make that clear.  But there is an article
>>>>>>>> that came out today trying to paint it as a particularly divisive issue of
>>>>>>>> one faction.  And fails to mention that the main vocal critic of Arvin is
>>>>>>>> from that faction (yours truly).  Any reporting on LNC action that fails to
>>>>>>>> mention the quite obvious issue that it is the fellow anarchist and radical
>>>>>>>> who has been incessantly calling him to task is pretty transparently having
>>>>>>>> the opposite agenda, with the expected response of THROW OUT THE ANARCHISTS.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No. Bueno.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> All.of.this.needs.to.STOP.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -Caryn Ann
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 1:49 PM, Joshua Katz <
>>>>>>>> planning4liberty at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This specifies the chair, and RONR provides that no member may
>>>>>>>> assist the chair in parliamentary matters without the chair's request, so I
>>>>>>>> will not address the parliamentary question.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> However, I wanted to second this:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This issue is being used factionally to tear us apart.  But then
>>>>>>>> again, Arvin said that was part of the goal, and though I don't like tit
>>>>>>>> for tat, I can't blame moderates who feel attacked for thinking turnabout
>>>>>>>> is fair play.  *We need to stop that culture. * Now.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is precisely why I am cosponsoring and/or joining a call for a
>>>>>>>> meeting.  Issues left unresolved but continually brought back up have this
>>>>>>>> tendency to be divisive.  I favor coming a resolution.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Joshua A. Katz
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 1:54 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <
>>>>>>>> caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have several concerns here.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And to point out one detail for party members reporting on this
>>>>>>>> incident who - inadvertantly I am sure - omitted the fact that I personally
>>>>>>>> - a radical anarchist - am willing to co-sponsor this motion, thus making
>>>>>>>> four, but only have not because I am awaiting the go ahead from my region.
>>>>>>>> I don't need a 2/3 to just co-sponsor, and I am getting more comfortable
>>>>>>>> with it now that two of my states are in favour of removal.  CO and WA may
>>>>>>>> have a decision soon.  And in reflecting on this, I am seeing my way clear
>>>>>>>> to co-sponsor as long as some of my states believe it needs a hearing.
>>>>>>>> That protects minority voices.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This issue is being used factionally to tear us apart.  But then
>>>>>>>> again, Arvin said that was part of the goal, and though I don't like tit
>>>>>>>> for tat, I can't blame moderates who feel attacked for thinking turnabout
>>>>>>>> is fair play.  *We need to stop that culture.  Now.*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But to my concerns.  I have been reading more in RONR and I think
>>>>>>>> the motion is improper for the reasons I stated before.  It must state a
>>>>>>>> cause.  Further, I do not think it CAN be handled by email, and I think it
>>>>>>>> MUST (if it has enough co-sponsors - or at a meeting - a second) take the
>>>>>>>> form of a trial - in executive session.  I don't like secret sessions but
>>>>>>>> that is my reading of RONR, and it doesn't seem like it can be suspended -
>>>>>>>> though it seems that the subject of the discipline could waive that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I would like the Chair to weigh in on my objection to this Motion
>>>>>>>> as being out of order without a stated cause.  That being said, I do have
>>>>>>>> some proposed cause language.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Members reading this.  Do not allow anyone to put you into a
>>>>>>>> mentality of purging anyone.  Moderate, Radical, or otherwise.  Our binding
>>>>>>>> factor is the Statement of Principles.  Inciting a hate movement against
>>>>>>>> Johnson supporters is counterprodutive and just flat out wrong.  The same
>>>>>>>> is true for Party radicals and anarchists.  This is insane.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -Caryn Ann
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 2:15 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <
>>>>>>>> caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> One of my states has requested the "cause" language for
>>>>>>>> consideration.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -Caryn Ann
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 6:50 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <
>>>>>>>> caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I spoke with the Chair of HI.  She supports removal.  Region 1:
>>>>>>>> Utah (no); Arizona (recused entirely); Alaska (yes); Hawaii (yes).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Some may object that I have influenced some with my personal
>>>>>>>> opinion.  I don't have that much power.  But this is where the issue of us
>>>>>>>> being elected for our insight and judgment comes into play - the Chairs
>>>>>>>> want my advice.  They can take it or not, but they want it.  And I advise
>>>>>>>> them on how to protect their own state if the LNC does nothing.  That is my
>>>>>>>> job.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As promised, this is what Alaska wrote to me:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> After discussion with our state board, it is our view that Arvin
>>>>>>>> Vohra should be removed from the position of Vice Chair of the Libertarian
>>>>>>>> Party.  On an intellectual level, some logic may exist in his arguments,
>>>>>>>> however the topics and conclusions he forwards repeatedly result in
>>>>>>>> discredit to the LP.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This cannot continue.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Our leaders must be ambassadors as well as philosophers.  One role
>>>>>>>> cannot exist at the expense of the other.  The LP is not a hermetic
>>>>>>>> association for the advanced study of arcane philosophical concepts, but a
>>>>>>>> political organization with the intent to guide and influence our
>>>>>>>> government and citizenry.  All political correctness aside, earning the
>>>>>>>> credibility to do this comes at the cost of tailoring our message to our
>>>>>>>> audience, the American people.  Mr. Vohra does not, or perhaps cannot
>>>>>>>> understand this fundamental constraint.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -Caryn Ann
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 3:55 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <
>>>>>>>> caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> FYI - LPCO has an open email list.  Its time we heard the voices of
>>>>>>>> our members - anyone can follow their discussion
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/lpco-open-business/kPps5ugbr1A
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 3:53 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <
>>>>>>>> caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thank you Joshua, I am flattered that some of my words were
>>>>>>>> persuasive.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Let me argue more in favour of a meeting.  If this motion got four
>>>>>>>> co-sponsors and went to email vote, I am not going to have full word from
>>>>>>>> region 1 in ten days.  Not gonna happen.  So even though I suspect they
>>>>>>>> will not favour, this guarantees that there will be no region 1 support.  A
>>>>>>>> meeting can give more time and can allow me to let the region know they can
>>>>>>>> attend for public comment.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (states have told me that they have to wait for a board meeting).
>>>>>>>> I have three definite responses.  AZ asked to be recused.  AK is in favour
>>>>>>>> of suspension (and I will be forwarding their missive to me here).  UT
>>>>>>>> opposes.  The CO chair supports but the rest of the Board has not weighed
>>>>>>>> in (FYI I recused myself from the LPCO Board discussion).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 3:35 PM, Joshua Katz <
>>>>>>>> planning4liberty at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have stated my preference for an electronic meeting.  I also said
>>>>>>>> in that email that this is the second time this has come up, and it needs a
>>>>>>>> full hearing.  Since then, I have read emails from Ms. Harlos and from Mr.
>>>>>>>> Sharpe which have called some of my beliefs on this topic into question.  I
>>>>>>>> still am strongly inclined to vote no, but I have been convinced that
>>>>>>>> consideration is due.  I believe motions get clearer and better
>>>>>>>> consideration when they are actually pending - there is a difference,
>>>>>>>> psychologically, between speaking in general, and speaking on a precise
>>>>>>>> motion.  (On a side note, I agree with Ms. Harlos that this motion would be
>>>>>>>> better if it specified the cause, although I do not think this is
>>>>>>>> necessary.)  Therefore, I will cosponsor.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> However, I am cosponsoring on the following understanding, and I
>>>>>>>> ask the Secretary to correct me if my understanding is incorrect.
>>>>>>>> According to RONR, the maker of a motion may not speak against it in debate
>>>>>>>> (but may vote against it), but the seconder may speak against it in
>>>>>>>> debate.  Our email ballots generally list everyone who wished to see the
>>>>>>>> motion, the original maker and the cosponsors, as "cosponsors."  That
>>>>>>>> notwithstanding, it is my understanding that a cosponsor is in the position
>>>>>>>> of a seconder and may speak in debate against the motion.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Joshua A. Katz
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 4:52 AM, Elizabeth Van Horn <
>>>>>>>> elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I make a motion to suspend Arvin Vohra from his position as Vice Chair under Article 6, Section 7 of our Bylaws.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ___________________________________________________________________________________________
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Three of the four state affiliate chairs in Region 3 are now backing this motion. I told Region 3 that I'd need at least 3/4 of the region in accord to make the motion to suspend Arvin.  That percent was reached last night.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When I volunteered my time and energy to be a Regional Rep on the LNC, I didn't do it under the circumstances of, "only if convenient".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm doing this because I care about giving a voice to the many LP members who are running for office, getting out the vote, and spending their hard-earned money working toward electing libertarians.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> These are the people that make up the Libertarian Party. It is their voice that I represent.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, it is with calm resolve that I make this motion.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Elizabeth Van Horn
>>>>>>>> LNC Region 3 (IN, MI, OH, KY)
>>>>>>>> Secretary Libertarian Party of Madison Co, Indiana
>>>>>>>> Chair-LP Social Media Process Review Committee
>>>>>>>> Vice-Chair Libertarian Pragmatist Caucus
>>>>>>>> http://www.lpcaucus.org/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>>>>>>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>>>>>> http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>>>>>>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>>>>>> http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>>>>>>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>>>>>> http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>>>>>>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>>>>>> http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>>>>>>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>>>>>> http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>>>>>>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>>>>>> http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>>>>>>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>>>>>> http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>>>>>>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>>>>>> http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>>>>>>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>>>>>> http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>>>>>>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>>>>>> http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>>>>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>>>> http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Arvin Vohra
>>>>>
>>>>> www.VoteVohra.com
>>>>> VoteVohra at gmail.com
>>>>> (301) 320-3634
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>>>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>>> http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>> http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Arvin Vohra
>>>
>>> www.VoteVohra.com
>>> VoteVohra at gmail.com
>>> (301) 320-3634
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>> http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lnc-business mailing list
>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>> http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Arvin Vohra
>
> www.VoteVohra.com
> VoteVohra at gmail.com
> (301) 320-3634
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20180117/db4d4114/attachment-0002.html>